Talk:Neminatha/GA2

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 01:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 17:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yo @Capankajsmilyo: I've put my comments here below. Ping me when you get a chance to fix them, yeah? As per usual, you have seven days. Have a great day! Sincerely, Jishara (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yo @Capankajsmilyo: followup ping - it's now been 11 days with no response. I really need you to get back to me as soon as possible. Jishara (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jishara: I've been improving the article as per your suggestions. You can have a look to see if there's anything I might have missed on. It's been a while after which iv returned on Wikipedia editing so I might not be that good. Any and every help and guidance will be appreciated. Thanks Capankajsmilyo (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll take a look and get back to you soon Jishara (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Still a bit of source pileups - a few spots where four sources are used for one sentence. Some sections are awkwardly worded, specifically the Teachings and Philosophies section and the Historicity section - would you potentially be able to try to rewrite it to be a bit more smooth-sounding? There's also a definite overuse of words that inflate importance and some sections that have things that need to be credited - for example, which people posited scandinavian connections? who says it was a deliberate attempt? such as who remains cautious? after these updates are done i'll do my spotcheck Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The MoS is followed. However, in some places organization doesn't make sense - for example, the discussion of textual sources of the Jain inscription shouldn't be under the Ghora Angirasa hypothesis, and I feel as though there needs to be more about some of them than that they exist. Furthermore there are some spelling/grammar errors that I'd ask to fix, and you double-list Ghora Angirasa - going into depth about it in both Historicity and Teachings.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig and I both find no signs of copyvio. Clauses are all cited in line to reliable sources. References section is clear, but many are missing page numbers, ISBNs, etc. However, there are some things that aren't supported by citations - furthered by some of the citations being massive pileups where some sources are difficult to access - at one point in Life Before Renunciation I see 6 sources for one sentence - and the ones I'm able to access don't fully support the sentence. Also, some internal inconsistencies - when did he live, 84,000 years or 81,000 years? was it Jain or Hindu calendar? 54 or 55 days of asceticism? Also, the Kalyani Chalukyas didn't exist at the time you're stating they built the things - they were 10th to 12th centuries, not 7th century. - after all of this is updated I will do a second spotcheck.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Occasionally feels slightly unfocused - in particular in Mount Girmar, and also when it talks about Ugrasena.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There's a bunch of lines with "believed" or "likely" that should state who hypothesized, etc. Especially the may also be identified with Scandinavian Deity one, too - needs to be attributed

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No sign of edit wars or anything like that in the history, so no stability threat.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Relevant pictures with good captions that have clear use justifications, are usable, and are useful in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold